John Enright has been at Defra for three years, and is probably best known for managing the Local Authority Support Unit within Defra’s Waste Implementation Programme (WIP). Recently, however, his role has changed and he now heads up the Waste Infrastructure Development Programme’s (WIDP) Project Development Unit, which aims to assist local authorities in beginning the initial development process for delivering large scale waste management infrastructure, through joint working.

Enright accepts that he’s so much “a part of the furniture that when new people join the waste team they’re often pointed in my direction”. However, many don’t realise that both he and Defra are benefiting from a mutual secondment arrangement, thanks to London Remade. He says a great deal of progress has been made since the waste teams were set up: “On my first day,” he recalls, “someone asked: ‘What do you do with blue bottles?’ A colleague replied in all seriousness, ‘I normally hit them over the head with a rolled up newspaper!’”

The chance to spend time at Defra came as a result of Enright’s local authority background, and so far no one seems in a hurry to send him packing. After leaving university, where he studied History and Politics, he was determined to find “something physical, something to stimulate the brain, and above all something that might have an impact in terms of the environment.” Shortly afterwards, he found himself working as an HGV driver on the recycling collection for the London Borough of Camden, where he eventually came to manage the recycling service. His experience of working in the Capital led to some surprises when he started working on the regional programme. “I thought the way London was set up would be reflected throughout the other eight regions, but that wasn’t the case,” he explaines. “Each region has its own identity. It’s been very beneficial for me personally to see how it works around the country, why things work in one place and not in another.”

Centralisation versus the local approach comes up a few times in our conversation and, as you might expect, each seems to have its pros and cons. Enright’s view is that, “In many ways, if the decision-making process misses out at the authority level and goes straight to central government there is a risk that a ‘one size fits all’ could be offered, and in reality this may not work for that community. It needs to be tailored and I think from on high it’s very difficult to tailor it.”

However, the advantages of a national structure that is able to offer feedback and expertise are not lost on him either. In addition to encouraging decision makers to tap the UK’s collected wisdom before engaging on a particular path, Enright draws attention to the National Audit Office, which called for greater emphasis on infrastructure, in particular for the top 25 authorities sending the largest amounts to landfill: “I’d only add to that, we shouldn’t just look at the top 25, we should look at those authorities that are working in partnership, what I would call clusters, that together will also impact on a national scale.”

This approach reflects a radical switch in the style of Defra support for local authorities. “In the past Defra has concentrated solely on the big pot of funding which is PFI,” acknowledges Enright. “What we’re saying now is that we are not just going to concentrate on that, though its existence is essential: we want to work with local authorities and to assist them on their chosen procurement route. At the same time we should learn from such engagement, as we are doing with all the other WIDP programmes, because once we learn what the barriers are we can help work towards overcoming them – if necessary through legislative changes.”

Enright claims that the structure of waste PFIs has changed, with greater focus on the capital asset requirement of waste treatment infrastructure. This has paved the way for allowing bids to come from a wider range of parties and opening the door, for example, to community groups that might previously have been excluded by a tendency to opt for integrated contracts. A more open approach also encourages new players which may be capable of building a plant or structure but have no interest in running collections.

“In the past the Uk has always been seen as the poor relative and I think that’s wrong. We know there’s innovation, we know people have not just the enthusiasm, but they’ve got the skills to deliver a more sustainable environment. It is vital that we all have the strength to carry decisions through, because as we can see already through the press – particularly with the national press – the public are seeing changes as being imposed on them and it’s going to take a really strong chin now to get things through like planning.”

So local authorities have to justify their performance to the public and also fulfil targets. Ben Bradshaw made it clear at the 2006 LARAC conference that penalties will be enforced, but luckily, if Enright’s attitude is echoed throughout the corridors of power, the introduction of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme means that local authorities don’t have to work in isolation – trading with others will in turn assist other authorities’ contribution to our national performance: “The bit that I hope will start to take off is that people will see that LATS is not the penalty. For those authorities who are trading at present, there’s been no stigma launched at them by government. They have looked at the system and said ‘Well actually, for taxpayers’ money, it is probably better if we purchase an allowance rather than leave ourselves open to a £150 penalty.’

“I would hope that one of the things we might be able to deliver through the infrastructure programme is greater transparency. For example, we may be able to have more information on the local authorities we’re working with to say, over target years, whether we’ll be in excess of allowances, and there might then be greater confidence for local authorities knowing that allowances will be available. At the moment it’s front end-loaded in terms of allowances, so it was relatively easy to achieve in terms of this year, but it’s going to get tougher. The question is, are local authorities going to put themselves in a position where they’re not going to trade and they’d rather pay a penalty, and risk the double jeopardy of facing the additional fines from Europe in the key Landfill Directive? With the increasing cost in Landfill Tax, this must ensure we all divert our biodegradable waste away from landfill.

“I think at the same time, there’s more of a culture starting to develop, for example in terms of carbon trading. Obviously it’s new for local authorities and I think that’s why we’ve got the LATS team trying to engage with them. Perhaps we need to do more, and that’s why this year there’s a review based on what we need to do to improve the system.”

Luckily, the culture shift extends far beyond local authority efforts to navigate around trading mechanisms. For Enright, the switch heralds a more positive era. Perhaps it’s a cliché that we’re all more optimistic, but for once it’s a cliché that holds up. As Enright says: “What I like is the fact that things I never thought would happen for some considerable time, are happening now. Maybe there are those that are moving into green industry as a business opportunity, but I’m just pleased there’s growth and that people are using their wits to make things that originally weren’t sustainable, sustainable.

“For many of us in this business, even though we might struggle with pressures, funding, changing the culture, backlash… many are saying things are changing. I remember when I started off all those years ago, when you talked about recycling, you were thought in many cases to be a lunatic, on the fringe of society. Now to those who say all this global warming talk is nonsense, most people just look and ask: ‘Who is the dinosaur now’.”